15:45:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
15:45:04 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/01/05-wai-wcag-irc
15:45:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:45:08 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
15:45:08 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:45:09 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:45:09 <trackbot> Date: 05 January 2016
15:45:11 <Joshue> zakim, agenda?
15:45:11 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
15:45:12 <Zakim> 3. AOB from last week [from Kenny]
15:45:12 <Zakim> 5. The COGA TF would appreciate the working groups feedback on two proposals for pulling together all the information from the COGA into a readable/digestible summary for the
15:45:12 <Zakim> ... purposes of gap analysis [from Joshue108]
15:46:13 <Joshue> zakim, clear agenda
15:46:13 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:46:59 <Joshue> agenda+ Quickref Update
15:47:37 <Joshue> agenda+ New edits for COGA extension
15:48:10 <Joshue> agenda+ Github issues in survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20161stSurvey/
15:48:29 <Joshue> agenda+ Upcoming Public review of new WCAG Understanding and Techniques docs.
15:48:44 <Joshue> agenda+  Published WCAG extensions requirements docs.
15:48:56 <Joshue> agenda+ Look ahead of WCAG work for 2016.
15:49:10 <Joshue> agenda+ Continuing Github issues walkthru. [1]
15:49:10 <Joshue> [1] https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues
15:50:15 <Joshue> Chair: Joshue
15:51:25 <yatil> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:51:25 <Zakim> Present: AWK, Srini, JF, Laura, EricE, Jan, Joshue108, Kenny, marcjohlic, DavidMacDonald, MichaelC, Wayne, JamesNurthen, Kurt, waume, sayne
15:51:30 <yatil> present:
15:52:47 <Wayne> Wayne has joined #wai-wcag
15:56:03 <AWK> AWK has joined #wai-wcag
15:57:11 <AWK> trackbot, start meeting
15:57:13 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:57:15 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
15:57:15 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:57:16 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:57:16 <trackbot> Date: 05 January 2016
15:57:24 <AWK> Zakim, agenda?
15:57:24 <Zakim> I see 7 items remaining on the agenda:
15:57:25 <Zakim> 1. Quickref Update [from Joshue]
15:57:25 <Zakim> 2. New edits for COGA extension [from Joshue]
15:57:25 <Zakim> 3. Github issues in survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20161stSurvey/ [from Joshue]
15:57:26 <Zakim> 4. Upcoming Public review of new WCAG Understanding and Techniques docs. [from Joshue]
15:57:26 <Zakim> 5. Published WCAG extensions requirements docs. [from Joshue]
15:57:26 <Zakim> 6. Look ahead of WCAG work for 2016. [from Joshue]
15:57:27 <Zakim> 7. Continuing Github issues walkthru. [from 1 via Joshue]
15:57:45 <AWK> +AWK
15:58:01 <AWK> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:58:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html AWK
15:58:42 <AWK> RRSAgent, set logs public
15:58:54 <laura> laura has joined #wai-wcag
15:59:36 <AWK> AWK+
15:59:40 <AWK> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:59:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html AWK
16:00:57 <AWK> present+ AWK
16:01:01 <AWK> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:01:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html AWK
16:01:23 <Wayne> wayne present+
16:01:31 <Joshue> present+ Josh
16:01:46 <Wayne> present+ wayne
16:02:21 <yatil> s/wayne present+//
16:02:21 <Sarah_Swierenga> Sarah_Swierenga has joined #wai-wcag
16:02:34 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #wai-wcag
16:02:40 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
16:02:54 <JF> JF has joined #wai-wcag
16:02:59 <Lisa_Seeman> i am beeing told the meeting password is oncorrect
16:03:03 <Lisa_Seeman> trying wcag
16:03:05 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
16:03:06 <JF> Present+ JF
16:03:21 <Lisa_Seeman> for webex, should the password be wcag?
16:03:37 <Sarah_Swierenga> present+ Sarah_Swierenga
16:04:02 <JF> Lisa, the Password is w3c
16:04:39 <MichaelC> present+ MichaelC
16:04:50 <MichaelC> s/Lisa, the Password is w3c//
16:05:13 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag
16:05:18 <Kurt> Kurt has joined #wai-wcag
16:05:30 <Lisa_Seeman> sorry, .my fault
16:06:39 <shorton> shorton has joined #wai-wcag
16:06:44 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
16:06:44 <Joshue> zakim, agenda?
16:06:45 <Zakim> I see 7 items remaining on the agenda:
16:06:45 <Zakim> 1. Quickref Update [from Joshue]
16:06:45 <Zakim> 2. New edits for COGA extension [from Joshue]
16:06:45 <Zakim> 3. Github issues in survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20161stSurvey/ [from Joshue]
16:06:46 <Zakim> 4. Upcoming Public review of new WCAG Understanding and Techniques docs. [from Joshue]
16:06:46 <Zakim> 5. Published WCAG extensions requirements docs. [from Joshue]
16:06:46 <Zakim> 6. Look ahead of WCAG work for 2016. [from Joshue]
16:06:47 <Zakim> 7. Continuing Github issues walkthru. [from 1 via Joshue]
16:06:51 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie Haritos-Shea
16:06:59 <Mike_Elledge> I'll scribe
16:07:06 <jamesn> present+ JamesNurthen
16:07:37 <jamesn> rrsagent, make minutes
16:07:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html jamesn
16:07:42 <yatil> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:07:42 <Zakim> Present: AWK, Josh, wayne, jon_avila, JF, Sarah_Swierenga, MichaelC, Katie, Haritos-Shea, JamesNurthen
16:07:56 <yatil> s/Present+ Katie Haritos-Shea/Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
16:08:01 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Katie gets Karmic Brownie points for scribing next week.
16:08:26 <Joshue> zakim, next item
16:08:26 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, Joshue
16:08:32 <yatil> q?
16:08:35 <yatil> ack Mike_Elledge
16:08:38 <Joshue> ack mike
16:08:38 <AWK> Zakim, queue?
16:08:39 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
16:08:41 <Joshue> zakim, next item
16:08:41 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Quickref Update" taken up [from Joshue]
16:08:56 <yatil> https://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-quickref/?currentsidebar=%23col_customize&tags=images
16:10:23 <yatil> https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-quickref/issues?q=is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22Public+Review+Comments%22+is%3Aclosed
16:10:30 <Mike_Elledge> EE: Update on quick ref. Good feedback on functionality and polish. If go to tab there are ticks on buttons to make clearer. Share button on bottom. Other techniques to satisfy success criteria.
16:10:32 <yatil> https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-quickref/issues?q=is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22Public+Review+Comments%22+is%3Aopen
16:10:39 <laura> present+ Laura
16:11:18 <Mike_Elledge> ee; Remaining issues, close 2 of 3 this week. Fix some missing techniques. Then final review and publish.
16:11:23 <Rakesh> Rakesh has joined #wai-wcag
16:11:33 <Joshue> q?
16:11:41 <Mike_Elledge> ee: Thx for good feedback during public phase. Went really well and appreciate!
16:11:50 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Final look and feel complete?
16:12:30 <Mike_Elledge> ee: This is final. Looked at it again and simplicity won out.
16:13:17 <Mike_Elledge> JO: One comment: color coding principles and guidelines. Would nicely break them up and make it easier to relate.
16:13:55 <Mike_Elledge> ee: Color coding is hard to translate and make an accessible version. Think it's clear enough.
16:14:02 <DavidSurface4> DavidSurface4 has joined #wai-wcag
16:14:19 <Mike_Elledge> ee: Blue spaces and indentation are pretty good for differentiating.
16:14:29 <yatil> s/ee; R/ee: R/
16:14:49 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Find blue blocks a bit too much. Maybe a think blue line to left if I was doing it.
16:15:10 <Joshue> q?
16:15:18 <DavidSurface4> thanks Eric
16:15:18 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Thanks.
16:15:39 <Joshue> zakim, next item
16:15:39 <Zakim> agendum 2. "New edits for COGA extension" taken up [from Joshue]
16:15:49 <MoeKraft> MoeKraft has joined #wai-wcag
16:15:59 <Ryladog> Note: I liked the big blue blocks
16:16:22 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Have been working on...
16:16:23 <Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposal_for_WCAG#Instructions.2C_navigation_and_non-trivial_information_are_provided_with_a_clear_writing_style
16:16:32 <DavidSurface4> lost you lisa
16:17:48 <Mike_Elledge> LS: We made a draft of COGA (Cognitive) to take to WCAG. Want to put in most useful form. Feedback was that not testable enough for adoption.
16:18:45 <jnurthen> jnurthen has joined #wai-wcag
16:19:11 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Started looking at rewording it. Haven't finished, but first pass on most content. Want feedback then do a second pass. Have revised suggestion for success criteria for writing style.
16:20:15 <Mike_Elledge> LS: For example, changed: "Clear writing style includes: (then defined points)." Have some more things to define and tweak. Sure WCAG will want to make others. Also have exceptions.
16:20:15 <Joshue> q?
16:20:20 <Joshue> q+
16:21:15 <jnurthen> q+
16:21:25 <Mike_Elledge> LS: For example, if "University has a particular style." Or if it's a literary work may be an exception.
16:21:36 <JF> Q+
16:21:37 <Joshue> ack me
16:21:44 <Wayne> q+
16:22:19 <Mike_Elledge> JO: General question: How will police this, how to write testable procedures besides author's subjective opinion?
16:23:13 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Human testable until tools catch up. If you look at list you see testable criteria.
16:23:34 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Have gone into grammatical criteria?
16:23:54 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Yes. "Short clips...etc."
16:24:16 <Mike_Elledge> JO: These could be used as algorthms. May have a subjunctive clause out of place.
16:25:59 <laura> q+ to ask have exitsting readability test been considered?
16:26:09 <Joshue> ack jn
16:26:13 <Mike_Elledge> LS: "Use simple rather than complex words." So use 3,000 most commonly used words. Seemed a sensible number, can change. Idea is that tester can identify word not commonly used.
16:26:21 <Ryladog_> Ryladog_ has joined #wai-wcag
16:26:44 <Mike_Elledge> James: Some more testable than others. Can't differentiate between opinions and facts.
16:27:16 <Mike_Elledge> K: Based on certain assumptions.
16:27:27 <Joshue> s/May have a subjunctive clause out of place./Notifying the user via a browser plug in May have a subjunctive clause out of place..etc. Why don't you try x?
16:27:34 <Ryladog_> Based on research
16:27:43 <yatil> q+ to comment on i18n
16:28:05 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Would be "can you reword it, here's a contrary POV"
16:28:06 <Ryladog_> Present+ Katie Haritos-Shea
16:28:34 <yatil> s/Present+ Katie Haritos-Shea/Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea/
16:28:35 <Mike_Elledge> JF: Muddying the waters if something can't be tested.
16:28:55 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Tried to go with 9 out of 10 approach.
16:29:04 <Ryladog_> q+
16:29:07 <JF> s/JF: Muddying the waters if something can't be tested./JN: Muddying the waters if something can't be tested.
16:29:23 <Mike_Elledge> JF: Have a problem with 9/10 approach. May have client that disagrees.
16:29:42 <JF> +1 to James' point
16:29:52 <Joshue> q?
16:30:01 <Ryladog_> q+ to discuss the 9 out of 10. In WCAG 2 we used 8 out of 10.
16:30:05 <JF> s/JF: Have a problem with 9/10 approach. May have client that disagrees./JN: Have a problem with 9/10 approach. May have client that disagrees.
16:30:16 <DavidSurface4> originally it was 8/10
16:30:21 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Two issues. For opinion and facts, 9 out of 10 is quite strong.
16:30:32 <DavidSurface4> then we changed it to a "strong correlation"
16:31:14 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Understand about paying vendors, want to be black and white.
16:31:24 <Ryladog_> why do I keep getting kicked out
16:31:52 <Mike_Elledge> JN: One other concern. Some of this seems English-biased. Would it work in German, too.
16:32:12 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Ranking style can be replaced based on local needs.
16:32:12 <yatil> q-
16:32:18 <MoeKraft> q+
16:32:25 <Joshue> ack JF
16:33:04 <Mike_Elledge> JA: Concerned about testing too. Did you consider Flesch-Kincaid? All feeds into readability.
16:33:13 <DavidSurface4> your pinning out JF, turn down volume or push mike a way a bit
16:34:04 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Looked at it. Written out what the criteria are, can be changed if user testing indicates it. If there's an algorithm can use it, if appropriate.
16:34:30 <Mike_Elledge> JA: Trying to explain will be difficult, like to be mechanical whenever possible.
16:34:40 <Joshue> zakim, q?
16:34:40 <Zakim> I see Wayne, laura, Ryladog_, MoeKraft on the speaker queue
16:35:23 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Have provided exceptions based on active voice and present tense.
16:35:44 <Mike_Elledge> JA: My concern, how to we measure it. How do we measure conformance?
16:36:41 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Easy to create a tool to identify passive or future tense. Don't want to limit, but easy to build 99% of time.
16:36:43 <laura> Some existing readability tests: Gunning-Fog Index, Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid, grade level, Reading Level Algorithms. Check:
16:36:43 <laura> http://juicystudio.com/services/readability.php
16:37:32 <Mike_Elledge> JA: Have seen tools. My concern is not tools, but what is the cut-off. The line that says this is compliant, this is not. Lots of middle/grey ground.
16:37:38 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Give me an example.
16:37:52 <Mike_Elledge> LS: These are pretty much yes or no.
16:37:59 <Mike_Elledge> JA: General use.
16:38:26 <Ryladog_> Cue please
16:38:34 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Look at rest of phrase. There are lists available.
16:38:46 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #wai-wcag
16:38:57 <Kathy> present +Kathy
16:38:57 <Joshue> q?
16:39:00 <Joshue> ack wayne
16:39:01 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Let's not get lost in the weeds--see both of your points. Substantial queue. Good input.
16:39:38 <Mike_Elledge> WD: Couple of things. Answer to different languages. In some cases there's judgement involved. What do you mean by non-trivial.
16:40:07 <Jan> Jan has joined #wai-wcag
16:40:11 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Put in a definition. Something that user may search to find.
16:40:57 <Mike_Elledge> LS: If writing a blog unlikely someone would search. If looking for SC, would look up. Will be more obvious in final format.
16:41:38 <Mike_Elledge> WD: Would take me 2 hours to figure out if something was trivial. This will be a hard sell for academics.
16:42:01 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Have given exception. If a particular style or format.
16:42:08 <JF> As an add-on to the resources Laura listed: http://john.foliot.ca/readability-and-its-implications-for-web-content-accessibility/
16:42:15 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Clear writing will be a benefit for everyone.
16:42:29 <Mike_Elledge> WD: Many academics agree.
16:42:47 <Mike_Elledge> LS: There's an exception if you will be penalized.
16:42:50 <Joshue> ack laura
16:42:50 <Zakim> laura, you wanted to ask have exitsting readability test been considered?
16:42:50 <JF> s/JA:/JF:
16:44:00 <Joshue> ack ryla
16:44:00 <Zakim> Ryladog_, you wanted to discuss the 9 out of 10. In WCAG 2 we used 8 out of 10.
16:44:01 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Laura can you send to me in email.
16:45:14 <Mike_Elledge> Katie: Won't be able to rely on only machine test. General consensus was 8 of 10 for WCAG. Will have to stick with that. Understand concern about tools, but this is about human beings.
16:45:23 <Joshue> ack moe
16:46:25 <Mike_Elledge> Moe: Lot of good dialog. Logistical question: 12 points in clear writing, some seem at higher level than others.
16:46:32 <Joshue> zakim, agenda?
16:46:32 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
16:46:33 <Zakim> 2. New edits for COGA extension [from Joshue]
16:46:33 <Zakim> 3. Github issues in survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20161stSurvey/ [from Joshue]
16:46:33 <Zakim> 4. Upcoming Public review of new WCAG Understanding and Techniques docs. [from Joshue]
16:46:34 <Zakim> 6. Look ahead of WCAG work for 2016. [from Joshue]
16:46:34 <Zakim> 7. Continuing Github issues walkthru. [from 1 via Joshue]
16:47:27 <Mike_Elledge> LS: A and AA something we're considering. AA would be if tested all content. Have to be careful not to lock out people.
16:47:32 <Joshue> q?
16:47:50 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Interesting comments. Hope it's useful.
16:48:43 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Very, especially opinion vs. fact. Will try to make as machine testable as possible, not withstanding Katie's comment.
16:48:53 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Next steps? Review document again?
16:49:35 <Mike_Elledge> LS: We should wait until we've gone through it all again. Comments about format would be helpful now, however.
16:49:57 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Then we'll ask for a complete review.
16:50:05 <Wayne> q+
16:50:12 <Joshue> ack wayne
16:50:53 <Mike_Elledge> WD: Looked up defintion of non-trivial, maybe want a different term. Doesn't seem to match my understanding, maybe urgent instead?
16:51:32 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Trying to get to stage where can hand it off to WCAG. Assume there will be future back and forth.
16:51:50 <Joshue> zakim, next item
16:51:50 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Github issues in survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20161stSurvey/" taken up [from Joshue]
16:51:51 <jnurthen> q?
16:51:53 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Thrust of it is very good. Work on it and then send it to us for review.
16:52:23 <Joshue> Issue 80
16:52:30 <Joshue> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/80#issuecomment-141807642
16:52:38 <AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20161stSurvey/results
16:52:45 <Wayne> Wayne has left #wai-wcag
16:53:37 <Mike_Elledge> AK: Ask people about their comments for Issue 80.
16:54:12 <Joshue> q?
16:54:52 <Mike_Elledge> JR: Visual information seems out of scope. If person has turned off CSS then sighted person won't be able to see it.
16:55:18 <Mike_Elledge> JO: If image does provide information...
16:56:39 <Mike_Elledge> JF: All images providing important information, have to differentiate between background images and content images. Need to make it clear that those images don't have same contrast issues.
16:56:45 <jon_avila> +1 we need the ability to indicate what is decorative and what is contextual
16:57:06 <Mike_Elledge> JF: Background images disappear in high contrast mode on Windows, content images don't.
16:57:34 <Joshue> q?
16:57:38 <jon_avila> Not a bug IMO
16:57:42 <Mike_Elledge> JF:  Intential Windows behavior.
16:58:46 <Jan_> Jan_ has joined #wai-wcag
16:58:50 <JF> s/JF: All images providing/JN: All images providing
16:59:10 <Mike_Elledge> mea culpa, JF. Have misid'd JF for JN.
16:59:36 <JF> s/JF: Background images disappear/JN: Background images disappear
16:59:59 <JF> s/JF:  Intential Windows behavior./JN:  Intentional Windows behavior.
17:00:06 <Joshue> q?
17:00:13 <jon_avila> +1 to JN
17:00:23 <jon_avila> q?
17:00:23 <Joshue> q?
17:01:23 <Wayne> Wayne has joined #wai-wcag
17:01:31 <Wayne> q+
17:01:41 <DavidSurface4> http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#the-background-image
17:01:43 <Mike_Elledge> JA: Check CSS for specs about user agents. Otherwise depending on behavior of particular OS.
17:01:52 <jnurthen> "For accessibility reasons, authors should not use background images as the sole method of conveying important information. See Web Content Accessibility Guideline F3 [WCAG20]. Images are not accessible in non-graphical presentations, and background images specifically might be turned off in high-contrast display modes."
17:02:23 <Joshue> ack wayne
17:02:49 <Mike_Elledge> WD: Would consider using background image for content to be a failure of 1.3.1
17:02:51 <DavidSurface4> James can you drop in a link to that
17:03:02 <laura> F3: Failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1 due to using CSS to include images that convey important information: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F3.html
17:03:18 <Mike_Elledge> WD: has to be programmatically determined. Can't tell if background image is important.
17:03:41 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Shouldn't be using background images for important content.
17:03:55 <Jan> URL for quoted text: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-backgrounds-3/#the-background-image
17:04:55 <Mike_Elledge> AK: First: fail 1.1.1 if image doesn't appear because of css. Don't think you do, based on wording. Not sure what success criteria this falls under, perhaps 1.3.1, but doesn't fit well, and worry about overloading 1.3.1.
17:05:02 <Mike_Elledge> AK: Maybe a task force issue.
17:05:32 <Ryladog_> Maybe a Low Vision TF issue
17:05:42 <Mike_Elledge> AK: Do people think if image doesn't appear is a failure of 1.1.1?
17:05:46 <DavidSurface4> q+
17:06:10 <Mike_Elledge> JO: If you have an image in the background, can you add a label to provide an alternative.
17:06:48 <Mike_Elledge> JA: Technically you can if you have an aria label on the parent, and put focus on it.
17:07:04 <jon_avila> aria-label is not displayed when images are turned off where as alt on img is
17:07:06 <Mike_Elledge> JO: But won't be in DOM where images are generally kept.
17:07:35 <Mike_Elledge> JA: If it's focusable (with tab) maybe that's the criteria.
17:07:41 <Joshue> q?
17:07:50 <Mike_Elledge> Katie: Has to be visible.
17:08:11 <Wayne> q+
17:08:14 <jon_avila> q+_
17:08:21 <JF> s/JA: Technically/JF: Technically
17:08:22 <Mike_Elledge> Talking about losing visual information.
17:08:24 <yatil> q-_
17:08:25 <Joshue> ack david
17:08:28 <Ryladog_> By moving focus to an invisible content - myou would create a fail for Visual Focus
17:08:31 <yatil> q+ jon_avila
17:08:37 <Rakesh> I have to add something
17:08:41 <JF> s/JA: If it's focusable/JF: If it's focusable
17:09:17 <Rakesh> In addition to what JF says we need to add role img to the div that talks about the image
17:10:00 <Mike_Elledge> DM: Couple of other things. Need a technique with a div with an aria label on it. Sometimes feel it's important to have item as background image. May need tabindex=-1 to get into the ally tree, but focus not needed.
17:10:04 <jon_avila> q?
17:10:06 <Joshue> ack way
17:10:14 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Should steer away from User Agent issues.
17:10:14 <Ryladog_> q+
17:10:20 <laura> Low vision Use case #2 under Color and Contrast section: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/User_stories_-_use_cases#Color_and_Contrast
17:10:20 <jon_avila> +1
17:10:20 <AWK> q+
17:10:38 <Joshue> +1 to Wayne and AWK a la sending this to LVTF
17:10:43 <laura> q+
17:11:00 <Joshue> ack jon
17:11:01 <Mike_Elledge> WD: Access to alt text is a serious problem. Like contrast ratio not sufficient, big technical gap wrt low vision.
17:12:42 <jnurthen> q+
17:12:47 <jnurthen> q-
17:12:54 <Mike_Elledge> JA: Background image should not include content, AT won't be able to differentiate between content and decorative. Maybe create a new CSS property. Need to be able to address the issue. Until we have something more clear hesitate to remove it.
17:12:56 <Wayne> +1
17:13:01 <jnurthen> q+ to ask if we can solve this by just limiting this to background images
17:13:07 <laura> +1
17:13:23 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Maybe an opportunity to inform developers about need for sufficient contrast.
17:13:26 <Wayne> q+
17:13:29 <Mike_Elledge> q+
17:13:48 <jnurthen> q+ to state that if building something on iOS only then this isn't a failure either....
17:14:31 <Mike_Elledge> JA: Trend is to invert colors, not same as high contrast. Like in iOS. Have to allow people to change images the way that work for them.
17:14:31 <Joshue> ack ryla
17:14:37 <yatil> Firefox can also change text/background colors, also user stylesheets.
17:14:38 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Need to increase awareness.
17:14:42 <jon_avila> q-
17:15:23 <Mike_Elledge> Katie: Don't remove it. Want to bring up focus thing. Shoud not hijack focus to make this functional. Would remove focus for people who need it.
17:15:23 <Joshue> ack awk
17:15:24 <laura> ack laura
17:15:36 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Katie update on comments.
17:15:38 <Wayne> q-
17:15:49 <Mike_Elledge> AK: Not to remove failure.
17:16:07 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Just modify test procedure.
17:17:02 <Mike_Elledge> AK: Core issue whether having visual information programmatically available should be added. Doesn't mention visual failure now. Somewhat confused about what people are talking about removing.
17:17:31 <Mike_Elledge> AK: If we don't agree with the question, that would be the response. But doesn't feel trivial to figure out all the permutations of the discussion.
17:18:42 <Mike_Elledge> Katie: Based on 1.1, transform content, it could be interpreted that way. Maybe it's an equivalent purpose by having it visual. Visually it still being there is an equivalent purpose.
17:18:43 <shorton> I believe this is an issue with other types of content, not just images
17:19:22 <Joshue> ack jnur
17:19:22 <Zakim> jnurthen, you wanted to ask if we can solve this by just limiting this to background images and to state that if building something on iOS only then this isn't a failure either....
17:19:29 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Use of background images is more frequent, and need to address it. Loop it in with low vision task force.
17:20:03 <Mike_Elledge> JN: Could we solve by modifying failure: Be clear that we're talking about background images and not content.
17:20:30 <shorton> The issue is really the use of CSS for content in general
17:20:37 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Have to make failure more watertight. Is this more relevant to background images?
17:20:43 <Mike_Elledge> JN: Yes.
17:20:52 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Maybe call out in title for failure.
17:21:09 <Wayne> q+
17:21:37 <Joshue> ack mike
17:22:06 <Joshue> ME: The use of background images for content is to reduce the amount of space.
17:22:13 <Joshue> ME: They are lighter.
17:22:27 <Joshue> JN: Techniques bundle these into one, a la sprites.
17:22:31 <Joshue> ME: Exactly.
17:22:43 <Joshue> ME: Its tough to get devs to change that method.
17:22:53 <Joshue> JN: Using content images with the same techniques is possible.
17:22:56 <Jan> q+
17:23:03 <Joshue> ME: Thats note been brought to their attention IMO.
17:23:06 <Joshue> q?
17:23:22 <yatil> I think that this technique might also superseded with SVG <use>
17:23:29 <Joshue> JN: Image fonts also are good.
17:23:37 <Joshue> ME: Maybe we need another technique.
17:23:51 <Joshue> JOC: Eric is making the same point about SVG.
17:24:03 <Joshue> ack way
17:24:49 <Joshue> agenda?
17:25:10 <jon_avila> so that's why SC 1.3.1 may apply
17:25:18 <shorton> agreed
17:26:02 <Jan> q-
17:26:06 <Mike_Elledge> WD: Using a background image for content is not programmatically discernible.
17:26:19 <Mike_Elledge> WD: Can't detect which O
17:26:34 <Mike_Elledge> S is being used.
17:27:26 <Joshue> ack jan
17:27:28 <Joshue> q?
17:27:44 <Joshue> JR: We can't say that because we are just on windows.
17:27:51 <AWK> Scribe: AWK
17:28:06 <Joshue> zakim, next item
17:28:06 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Upcoming Public review of new WCAG Understanding and Techniques docs." taken up [from Joshue]
17:28:11 <Jan> JR: Agree with Wayne that can't assume that background images are never hidden when not on Windows
17:28:34 <Joshue> Undestanding Doc: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2016/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20160105/
17:28:38 <AWK> JO: We will be sending out a CFC on the list today for the public release of the Techniques and Understanding docs
17:28:41 <Joshue> Techniques: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2016/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20160105/
17:29:09 <AWK> JO: Please take a look at these
17:30:07 <jon_avila> When are we meeting at CSUN?
17:30:08 <AWK> AWK: Just a simple approval for public review
17:30:15 <Mike_Elledge> Present+ Mike Elledge
17:30:34 <AWK> JO: No meeting planned for CSUN
17:30:44 <AWK> KHS: Deque offered to host a F2F
17:31:00 <MoeKraft> Happy New Year!
17:31:07 <AWK> Zakim, list attendees
17:31:07 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, Josh, wayne, jon_avila, JF, Sarah_Swierenga, MichaelC, Katie, Haritos-Shea, JamesNurthen, Laura, Mike, Elledge
17:31:18 <Sarah_Swierenga> Happy new year to everyone!
17:31:24 <AWK> Present+ Jan
17:31:44 <AWK> Present+ Rakesh
17:31:53 <AWK> Present+ Eric
17:32:01 <AWK> Present+ LisaS
17:32:12 <AWK> Present+ Kathy
17:37:14 <AWK> Zakim, list attendees
17:37:14 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, Josh, wayne, jon_avila, JF, Sarah_Swierenga, MichaelC, Katie, Haritos-Shea, JamesNurthen, Laura, Mike, Elledge, Jan, Rakesh, Eric,
17:37:17 <Zakim> ... LisaS, Kathy
17:37:43 <AWK> Present+ David_MacDonald
17:37:55 <AWK> trackbot, end meeting
17:37:55 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:37:55 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, Josh, wayne, jon_avila, JF, Sarah_Swierenga, MichaelC, Katie, Haritos-Shea, JamesNurthen, Laura, Mike, Elledge, Jan, Rakesh, Eric,
17:37:58 <Zakim> ... LisaS, Kathy, David_MacDonald
17:38:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:38:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
17:38:04 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:38:04 <RRSAgent> I see no action items